Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send-post-requestD
  1.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations indicate it's not read-only (destructiveHint=false) but description adds no behavioral details like error handling, response format, or idempotency. Minimal context beyond annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Extremely brief but not concise in a helpful way—lacks essential information. Not front-loaded with key purpose or usage details.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is severely incomplete. Does not equip agent to use the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has 0% description coverage for 4 parameters (url, data, headers, timeout). Description does not explain their purpose, format, or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose1/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description 'send the post request' is a tautology, restating the tool name without specifying what sending a POST request actually does (e.g., creates resources, submits data). No distinction from sibling HTTP method tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (send-get-request, send-put-request, etc.). No context on idempotency, side effects, or appropriate use cases.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• send-delete-requestD
  1.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  The description adds no behavioral information beyond what is already indicated by the destructiveHint=true annotation. It does not explain side effects, idempotency, or typical response characteristics.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While the description is short, it is under-specified and fails to convey necessary information. True conciseness retains value while removing fluff; here, the value is missing.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 5 parameters, no parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not clarify the request format, expected outcomes, or error handling, making it almost useless for an AI agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. Parameters like url, headers, and timeout are not elaborated, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to use them.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description merely restates the tool's name ('send the delete request') without adding any specificity about what the tool actually does. It distinguishes the HTTP method from siblings but provides no additional clarity beyond the name.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send-get-request or send-post-request. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• send-put-requestD
  1.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. No mention of effects on server state, auth needs, or error conditions.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While extremely concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks structure, providing only a single sentence that adds no value beyond the name.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to equip the agent for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent receives no information about what 'url', 'data', 'headers', etc., mean or how to use them. This is a critical gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'send the put request' is a tautology of the tool name and does not specify what resource or endpoint is affected. It barely distinguishes from sibling tools (send-post-request, etc.) by only mentioning the HTTP method.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (POST, GET, DELETE). The description lacks context about idempotency or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• send-get-requestC
  2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description does not contradict annotations but adds no additional behavioral context beyond the bare method.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Extremely concise (5 words) but at the cost of informativeness. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With five parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter explanations, the description is completely inadequate for the agent to understand the tool's behavior or how to invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters (url, headers, pathParams, etc.). The agent receives no semantic guidance.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'send the get request' is vague and almost tautological. It states the method (GET) but does not specify what the request does, what it returns, or how it differs from sibling tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., send-post-request). The description does not mention that it is for read-only operations or any exclusions.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.